It seems to me that there can be no such thing as a "monarchist". An -ist indicates some sort of intentional form of government which one may support establishing or working towards. Yet looking at the various attempts to bring back the ancein regime or something like it, it strikes me that monarchy is not something which can be intentionally established, except as a cultural and political figurehead of sorts. Monarchy must necessarily be an unintentional form of government, and so while one may admire it where one finds it in history, it doesn't seem like something one can be a supporter of establishing. An intentionally established monarchy would not be a monarchy in any sense worth valuing.

If one sits down (at least from a modern perspective, with ideas like writing a constitution or government by the will of the people floating around) and decides to have a king, what one really gets is a single absolute administrator. It's not really a monarchy, because for a monarchy to really a monarchy in the sense that pre-modern monarchies worked, it has to be necessary to have a king. It must seem to be the only decent way to be ruled -- the only way to have and ordered and just society. The king has to be king because there must be a king.

But if you say, "We're the people, and we think we'd like to have a king," you're essentially saying, "The people rule, but they'd like to have one person in charge at the moment." If the people wanted a senate instead, or a pure democracy, they could discard the king they had chosen and have that instead.

In this sense, it seems to me that real monarchy is something which has to just develop, naturally. It's not something you can choose. And thus having a monarchist ideological faction (except perhaps to the extent of saying, "It's impossible that you get rid of the monarchy, we must keep the monarchy!") doesn't make any sense.

It would be like saying, "We demand organic development of the liturgy right now!"

I can see where you are going with this. It would seem that any American who campaigned to replace the office of the President of the United States with a monarchy would be a radical or revolutionary or worse, and nothing could be more fatal to the conservatism and legitimism that typically characterizes a monarchist.

But I also think that the issue is much bigger than just politics in modern nation states. Take the case of Afghanistan. Under Mohammed Zahir Shah, Afghanistan enjoyed 40 years of stability characterized by freedom, respect for the law, modest modernisms like the education of women, but also a conservative respect for traditional tribal and Islamic culture. All this came to a halt in 1973 when an ex-prime minister declared himself president with Soviet assistance.

After decades of turmoil, Zahir Shah returned to Afghanistan in 2002 to convene the Loya Jirga. Many people, myself included, think he would have been the best head-of-state that Afghanistan could possibly have, an opinion he himself shared. But he was unwilling to fracture the fragile republic which coalesced behind Hamid Karzai, so he stayed in Afghanistan and lent his personal legitimacy to the new republic, but not as a head of state. It seems to me Baba Zahir's partisans could accurately be called monarchists.

Take also the case of Australia. Those who actively campaign to replace her Majesty with an elected "president of Australia" are being opposed by people who are very accurately called monarchists. Or consider Spain; not so very long ago a man could be killed for calling himself a monarchist, yet today Spain is headed by a king. Those who won the day and returned Spain to stability and prosperity could and still can call themselves monarchists.

Monarchism is a very real political phenomenon, and monarchists have contributed mightily to the political health of many nations.

I think you're definitely right about Afghanistan. I guess I'm less sure I'd really think of Spain as a monarchy, given that the monarch has virtually no part to play in the government these days. But you're right, being a monarchist in the Spanish Civil War meant something, and indeed, I'd agree it meant something worth fighting for.

I think it is commonly misunderstood the degree of absolutism historical (Catholic)monarchies have had. The people could be released from loyalty to their Kings and Emperors by the Pope or bishops as a result of acts of despotism.

I do seem to remember occasions in the history of Europe that the nobles of a kingdom actively search for candidates to replace a king whose bloodline had ended.

I know these points don't address the topic very precisely, but I haven't time right now to make such a response.

Many monarchies have been elective: Holy Roman Emperors were elected; the Polish-Lithuanian commowealth had an elective monarchy. Many other examples (see elective monarchy in Wikipedia). How would this fit what you are discussing?

Contributors

Reading

With the Catholic News sites discussing the Vatican's move to reform the LCWR, I pulled this slim volume written back in 1986 off the shelf to re-read. It's a quick and amusing read: a satirical view of the breakdown and renewal of reli...

I'd never read any Henry James before, though I did see the Nicole Kidman movie adaptation of Portrait of a Lady some years ago because... well, because it was a costume drama with Nicole Kidman in it.
This was one of those novels I ...

If you, like me, have been reared on tales of the second World War as the just and virtuous struggle of the "greatest generation", Evelyn Waugh's arch novels (based loosely on his own war experiences) are an important and darkly enjoyabl...

This was the first time in some years that I've re-read this Austen novel, one of the quieter and shorter ones, but one which has ranked among my favorites. It was striking me, on this pass, that it rather shows the effects of having be...